Skip to main content

Defamation

 DEFAMATION 


INTRODUCTION 

Reputation is an asset to each and every one. Any damage to such asset can be legally dealt with. As the definition of the term implies, defamation is a harm to a person's reputation caused by a false statement. The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue them for money (called damages) for harming your reputation. A man's reputation is considered as his property, and anybody who causes property damage is accountable under the law; similarly, anyone who harms a person's reputation is likewise liable under the law.

DEFAMATION LAW IN INDIA

Article 19 of the Constitution grants various freedoms to its citizens. However, Article 19(2) has imposed reasonable exemption to freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1) (a). Contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence are some exceptions.

Both civil and criminal law consider defamation to be an offence. Defamation is punished under civil law under the Law of Torts, which imposes a penalty in the form of damages to be given to the claimant. Defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable, and compoundable offence under criminal law. As a result, a police officer can only make an arrest if a magistrate issues an arrest warrant. The offence is punishable by a simple imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both under the Indian Penal Code.

Defamation as a criminal offence is listed under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment, mentioned under section 500, can extend upto simple imprisonment for a term of two years, or with fine, or both. But, Under a criminal suit, intention to defame is necessary.

  • SECTION – 499 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE – Defines, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person.

  • SECTION – 500 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE -  Punishment for defamation - Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

ESSENTIALS OF DEFAMATION 

  1. The statement must be defamatory

The first essential of defamation is that the nature of the statement must be defamatory, i.e., it should lower or injure the reputation of the person in society.

In the Case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy court held Dr. Swamy to be liable for defaming Mr. Jethmalani by saying that he received money from a banned organization to protect the then CM of Tamil Nadu in the case of the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.


  1. The statement must refer to the plaintiff

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he Complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. The defendant shall be held responsible if the person to whom the statement was published might reasonably conclude that the statement related to him. 

The defendants were declared responsible in the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court for posting a statement without intending to slander the defendants. According to the announcement, a specific individual who was transporting Agarbathis to Ceylon had been detained for smuggling. The plaintiff was also a participant in a similar company, and his reputation was badly harmed as a result of this remark.


  1. The statement must be published

The most important essential of defamation is the publication of the defamatory content to a third party. Unless there is a publication of the statement, no action lies. 

In Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad, the defendant was found responsible for sending a defamatory letter to the plaintiff in Urdu, knowing that the plaintiff did not know Urdu and that the message would most likely be read by another person.


FORMS OF DEFAMATION 

  1. SLANDER - It is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form. 

 For example- Defaming a person by way of words or gestures.


  1. LIBEL- It is the representation made in some permanent form.

For example- Defaming a person through a representation made in some permanent form like writing, printing etc.

DEFAMATION LAWS CONSTITUTIONALITY 

The fact that defamation laws are a breach of the basic freedom provided by Article 19 of the constitution has sparked debate. The Supreme Court has found that defamation laws are constitutionally legitimate and do not conflict with the right to free expression. The court also stated that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but rather "absolutely sacred. Article 21 stipulates that a person's right to life includes his or her right to reputation, which cannot be jeopardised by others' freedom of expression.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more